In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> And from the abc source you have written >> >> K:A_b^f^c >> >> shouldn't that have a G# also since you've written K:A? > >It definitely shouldn't have a G#, since the Gs aren't sharp.
So you are saying that K:A has 3 sharps K:A _b has no sharps and one flat instead? This is totally illogical. I can understand K:A _b to mean 3 sharps and add a b flat but what now is the significance of the A? > >It's K:A<something> since A seems, to me, the root note. Amix would have >been better - I have a vague memory that I tried that and it didn't work >at the time, so the result's a kludge. But it does now. The root note is totally irrelevant to anything. As you indicate, sometimes there is argument about it anyway. Now I don't really mind having minor keys as they are well established, and maybe even the modes but in the case of made-up key signatures described exactly in a K: format I don't see the point. Make that K:_b^f^c in your example above. Bernard Hill Braeburn Software Author of Music Publisher system Music Software written by musicians for musicians http://www.braeburn.co.uk Selkirk, Scotland To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
